4 ms·

> I think we should just ban social media companies. Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed

> I think we should just ban social media companies. Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. Not in that I want to see it reversed so the fascists currently in power can use the dynamic as a club to go after speech they don't like. But rather that I think the Internet would have developed healthier without it, and what it has enabled. > On the other hand we have what we have today, propagandists, bots, hatred, &c. You seem to be pigeonholing all of the problems into one bag. "Hatred" does not go away with real-name policies. > It's like you're complaining about potential problems, but ignoring the current problems happening today are those potential problems. No, I am pointing out that you're approaching this from the wrong angle. The core dynamic of the Internet has always been "don't trust what you read on the Internet". The lack of needing permission to communicate is precisely what has enabled so much innovation. Defining context is the responsibility of higher layers. What changed from that core dynamic? The social media companies showed up, took unvetted and unfiltered streams of content, and presented them to the public as trustworthy finished products. "We'll figure out a better system than naive voting later". Well later never came, did it? At least Slashdot tried. Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right?

ericmay 8mo ago
> Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right? I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall) "“Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said Wednesday in New Delhi. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” Macron said. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right. > Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...
- mindslight 8mo ago
  > I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service Yes I wholeheartedly agree with Macron's quote, and basically agree with your interpretation of it. Maybe you can see we have some common ground here and re-read what I wrote before? My critique isn't trying to reject that there is a problem. Rather I'd say my critique is that your proposed solution is specious and will enable worse things > not exercising a constitutional right Except individual users are also exercising a constitutional right. That's the problem - users' main modern ways of partaking in their constitutional rights are being modulated by corporations! (Just to be clear though, I think the legal system's current framing of the owners/workers of Facebook having a "constitutional right" to control users' speech is utterly disingenuous) > if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you Now that the situation has been set up, maybe, and maybe users would stand for this. But verification wouldn't actually resolve their problem when Joe Judgementproof posts fascist hate, they'd become jointly responsible for publishing it. The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
  - nobody9999 8mo ago
    >The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has. That's exactly the opposite of what Section 230 has done. Section 230 doesn't stop anyone from suing folks who defame or otherwise break the law. Rather, it specifies that those who say such things are the proper target, not the platforms that host such third-party speech. And that's the important point. Section 230 covers third-party speech. Because litigation is expensive. As such, it mostly protects the little guy who doesn't have the resources to fight tens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits because some folks don't like the restaurant/movie reviews or opinions about the quality of book plots or political speech or the Epstein Files or a myriad of other things that folks don't like and wish people would shut up about. Nothing stops an aggrieved part from suing an individual for the things that individual says. But Section 230 says you can't sue the platform (say the website, Matrix or XMPP server you personally host) for the speech of a third-party who uses that platform. In the absence of Section 230, huge, deep-pocketed companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, et. al can pay for legions of lawyers to fight such lawsuits. Do you have such deep pockets? Not all Internet content exists on those huge, deep-pocketed platforms. Many useful and interesting sites hosted by individuals or small businesses exist, but would be put out of business in a week if Section 230 didn't exist. Getting rid of Section 230 would only cement the huge platforms' dominance and make them more unaccountable and powerful. Is that your goal? Not saying it is, but it's important to think through the impact of Section 230 beyond the (false and misleading) pronouncements of those who want to control you, your speech and the means of disseminating that speech.

ericmay 8mo ago

> Facebook relies on real names, creating lists of bona fide friends, and can (could?) show you only posts from friends-of-friends, right? How does this differ from what you're proposing? If you're seeing Facebook posts from bots, you've either friended bots or Facebook is responsible for showing them to you, right? I think I am just more aligned with, for example, the French president on his criticisms: https://archive.ph/JMrd4 https://archive.ph/JMrd4 (archive link to avoid Bloomberg paywall) "“Having no clue about how their algorithm is made, how it’s tested, trained and where it will guide you — the democratic consequences of this bias could be huge,” Macron said Wednesday in New Delhi. “Some of them claim to be in favor of free speech — OK, we are in favor of free algorithms — totally transparent,” Macron said. “Free speech is pure bullshit if nobody knows how you are guided to this so-called free speech, especially when it is guided from one hate speech to another.” I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service, not exercising a constitutional right. > Sure, great! Go right ahead! I honestly think sec 230 was a mistake. I would but it's not up to me. I am not sure Section 230 was a mistake, at least in principle. But if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you. Which the government has access to...

mindslight 8mo ago
> I think this idea that social media companies are free speech platforms or should be treated as such, is incorrect and it's leading to bad outcomes. They are product companies selling you an experience of "being connected" and engaging with them is a matter of terms of service Yes I wholeheartedly agree with Macron's quote, and basically agree with your interpretation of it. Maybe you can see we have some common ground here and re-read what I wrote before? My critique isn't trying to reject that there is a problem. Rather I'd say my critique is that your proposed solution is specious and will enable worse things > not exercising a constitutional right Except individual users are also exercising a constitutional right. That's the problem - users' main modern ways of partaking in their constitutional rights are being modulated by corporations! (Just to be clear though, I think the legal system's current framing of the owners/workers of Facebook having a "constitutional right" to control users' speech is utterly disingenuous) > if you think Sec 230 was a mistake what would social media companies do in response? Verify you Now that the situation has been set up, maybe, and maybe users would stand for this. But verification wouldn't actually resolve their problem when Joe Judgementproof posts fascist hate, they'd become jointly responsible for publishing it. The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has.
- nobody9999 8mo ago
  >The point is that the moral hazard created by sec 230 is precisely what has allowed the centralized social media industry to grow to the point it has. That's exactly the opposite of what Section 230 has done. Section 230 doesn't stop anyone from suing folks who defame or otherwise break the law. Rather, it specifies that those who say such things are the proper target, not the platforms that host such third-party speech. And that's the important point. Section 230 covers third-party speech. Because litigation is expensive. As such, it mostly protects the little guy who doesn't have the resources to fight tens, hundreds or thousands of lawsuits because some folks don't like the restaurant/movie reviews or opinions about the quality of book plots or political speech or the Epstein Files or a myriad of other things that folks don't like and wish people would shut up about. Nothing stops an aggrieved part from suing an individual for the things that individual says. But Section 230 says you can't sue the platform (say the website, Matrix or XMPP server you personally host) for the speech of a third-party who uses that platform. In the absence of Section 230, huge, deep-pocketed companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, et. al can pay for legions of lawyers to fight such lawsuits. Do you have such deep pockets? Not all Internet content exists on those huge, deep-pocketed platforms. Many useful and interesting sites hosted by individuals or small businesses exist, but would be put out of business in a week if Section 230 didn't exist. Getting rid of Section 230 would only cement the huge platforms' dominance and make them more unaccountable and powerful. Is that your goal? Not saying it is, but it's important to think through the impact of Section 230 beyond the (false and misleading) pronouncements of those who want to control you, your speech and the means of disseminating that speech.